Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakatipu Aero Club


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. General consensus that the sources provided are insufficient. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wakatipu Aero Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable aero club with a commercial arm. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Per:, , , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Only the first ref is worthwhile. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bo significant coverage about the club. With respect to the references above, aside from the first, they aren't really about the club nor is there any depth of coverage.  As to the first ref, that looks more like an event announcement than an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, judging from the lack of a by-line, it's likely a press release. It's the second that comes close to being a supersource. The rest are trivial mentions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.